Laserfiche WebLink
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. C -6 -1516 <br />EXHIBIT C <br />4.1.2 City Consultant Services <br />Consultant services used by the CITY on behalf of the Project shall be coordinated with and <br />approved by the AUTHORITY. Existing contracts the CITY intends to use for Project support must be <br />submitted to AUTHORITY for review. AUTHORITY will review such contracts for compliance with <br />FTA requirements; to ensure there is not duplication of effort; to ensure they do not pose unsatisfactory <br />risks to Project schedule and /or budget; to ensure no existing conflicts of interests; and for eligibility <br />for reimbursement. The CITY agrees to follow the AUTHORITY's requirements for contract <br />modifications or task order language, if applicable, prior to advancing Project support work. <br />The CITY agrees to include information regarding conflict of interest with current AUTHORITY <br />contracts and future AUTHORITY procurements related to the Project in all CITY support <br />procurements. <br />4.2 CITY WORK PLAN BUDGET <br />4.2.1 City Staff Support <br />The CITY staff support budget has been developed by identifying positions, hours, and rates <br />in the categories shown in the City Support Work Plan ( "Work Plan ") in Exhibit E. <br />AUTHORITY will reimburse CITY for actual CITY staff support costs incurred in accordance <br />with the Work Plan budget. Actual costs include all eligible CITY direct and indirect costs that are <br />supported by documentation that meets federal requirements. The applied indirect cost recovery rate <br />applied to direct labor costs shall be established following federal regulations and be either the <br />deminimus rate or documented in a cost allocation plan approved by a federal agency or Caltrans. <br />The cost to develop a Cost Allocation Plan to determine an indirect cost recovery rate is not eligible <br />for reimbursement. <br />4.2.2 Periodic Cost Reviews <br />The AUTHORITY and the CITY agree to regularly monitor CITY costs expended in comparison <br />to the CITY support budget and the remaining effort anticipated. A formal review of funds expended <br />Exhibit C <br />Page 3 <br />25F -32 <br />